Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: francois(dot)perou(at)free(dot)fr
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-03-05 15:28:55
Message-ID: b42b73151003050728s1ea2edf7w93fba3d6b1540d50@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

2010/3/5 François Pérou <francois(dot)perou(at)free(dot)fr>:
> => All non-aggregate fields must be present in the GROUP BY clause
> http://drupal.org/node/555530

My take is that this is never going to happen unless we are strictly
talking about cases where the non-aggregate fields can be
unambiguously determined. If we aren't, mysql is wrong to allow this,
and developers that depend on it are wrong, and that is pretty much
all you are ever going to get from this list. :-)

The other stuff is mainly tangential fluff issues (takes 1% extra
effort to write portable sql for) except for the flexible multi table
delete, which would be nice although I wouldn't expect a strict copy
of mysql syntax. I am personally looking at writeable CTE (which
didn't make 9.0) to do most of the things I would need to do with a
multi table delete feature, plus a quite a few other things.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-03-05 16:39:34 Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-03-05 15:14:56 Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-03-05 16:39:34 Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tim Bunce 2010-03-05 15:26:51 Core dump running PL/Perl installcheck with bleadperl [PATCH]